July 2, 2008

Writes Jim Lindgren, commenting on my comment on Rush Limbaugh. (Ha ha.) He contrasts this trying to observe and understand what they are writing about — I would say thinking by writing —to "always writing op-eds with a thesis they are trying to prove" and is nice enough to say this is "one reason that I enjoy reading her blog." But he concludes:

Unfortunately, I find that many blog readers prefer strongly thesis-driven posts, which they can either echo or attack point by point.

Many... perhaps. But the best blog readers — and radio listeners — are the ones who want to experience thinking in real time.

Jim seems to be complimenting and critiquing me simultaneously. But I detect some wistfulness, some request for permission to cast aside those stronglythesis-driven posts — to live freely in writing.

I think it's funny that you appreciate Rush, despite the fact that you believed he was scripted. What I enjoy about the style you both share is the spontaneity. And, I would be put off tremendously by if the real-time brainstorm was just a ploy. Not that I don't think you have an act...I know you both do. But, it seems to be more about discovery and understanding than about affecting a particular reaction in the audience.

What's so superior about torturously arriving at what you know as you write? In some areas, the political for instance, the agnostic position - hovering, forever hovering - bespeaks an inexcusable perpetual adolescence. But then, in so many ways, that's the modern ideal, isn't it? To never coalesce into an adult who knows what he knows and says it straight out. That's so, ugh...unevolved.

I have to disagree ricpic. The adolescent is the one who is rigidly set in belief system, often accepting no evidence to the contrary. The unexamined life isn't worth living, and the unquestioned belief system isn't meaninfgul.

If Mr. Lindgren now references this post and then you reference it, making it a post about a post about a post about a post about post, the blogging world will collapse to a singularity and google will cease to exist.

Ha, ha! It's funny when people accuse others of being astoundingly stupid as they display their own limitations.

Of course there is a skill to blog reading, just as there are skills to reading. Reading words is a fairly basic skill, but good readers are able to see more, understand more, provoke more. They can see holes in arguments, follow complex reasoning, enjoy the sheer craft of writing. Good readers are able to do more with a given text.

It's like being a good listener. People who can understand, absorb, process and respond are better readers. You know, being able to observe and understand what they are reading about.

That seems pretty obvious. Bad readers tend to miss points and fly off into their preconceived thesis, often employing hyperbole because they lack the associated skill of expressive writing.

One tunes into a favorite sitcom to watch familiar characters behave predictably in unpredictable situations. There's something of a sitcom about Ann's blog. Some of the bloggers are quite funny but always remain in character. I don't yet know all the characters but it seems that there is a finite number. In the infinity of the internet this is reassuring.....In the comment section, Ann is an Olympian presence--generally benign and distant but occasionally appearing to toss the odd thunderbolt. The blog itself is a kind of a crank letter to the world. It's fun to observe the multiplicities and contradictions within a single person.

"Unfortunately, I find that many blog readers prefer strongly thesis-driven posts, which they can either echo or attack point by point."

"Many... perhaps. But the best blog readers — and radio listeners — are the ones who want to experience thinking in real time."

I noticed a similar contrast in opinions to the movie My Kid Could Paint That" at a showing at a local theater that was followed by an audience discussion of the documentary.

I, and others in the group, found the admission of the documentarian's on screen confession that he doesn't know which story is true, very refreshing.

But one person said it was completely disingenuous, that the documentarian should have pushed harder to find the truth and taken a position (never mind the subject was a little girl, and such investigative techniques would be akin to paparazzi stalking).

I found this attitude strange and incomprehensible. After reading this post however, I'm beginning to understand, as that guy wanted a thesis-based documentary, especially since very few documentaries are put into release without a firm opinion on the subject in the film.

I still don't know how the documentary director's confusion could be considered "disingenuous." I can only assume that he'd never seen Rashomon.